2 ms·
For OOP, I'd say the issue isn't so much that it's not useful (it is very useful), but rather that it was treated as "common sense, the only way to do it". Som
by ben_w 11mo ago
For OOP, I'd say the issue isn't so much that it's not useful (it is very useful), but rather that it was treated as "common sense, the only way to do it".
Sometimes the right tool for the job is objects, sometimes it's functional, sometimes you do want encapsulation but it's better as structs and using composition over inheritance. When everything looks like a `class Hammer extends Tool`…
- asa400 11mo agoAgreed - I like your phrasing of it. There are some good ideas in OOP. I don't know that I'd go as far as to credit OOP for those ideas, but things like polymorphism and encapsulation can be very useful. What I objected to was, as you said, OOP became "the only way to do it". It became a dogma. I was very happy when functional programming started to break through and show that there were other ways that were not only viable, but often better.